InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC issues semi-annual Interest Rate Risk Statistics Report
On October 20, the OCC published the fall 2021 edition of the Interest Rate Risk Statistics Report. The report presents interest rate risk data gathered during examinations of OCC-supervised midsize and community banks and federal savings associations with reported data by asset size, charter type, and minority depository institutions. The OCC’s supervisory process for the fall 2021 report reviewed banks’ reported data from September 30, 2019 to June 30, 2021, including exposures, risk limits, and non-maturity deposit assumptions. The OCC notes that the statistics presented within the report “are for informational purposes only and do not represent OCC-suggested limits or exposures.”
DOJ, CFPB, and OCC announce aggressive redlining initiative; take action against national bank for alleged lending discrimination
On October 22, the DOJ, in collaboration with the CFPB and the OCC, announced a new initiative to combat redlining and lending discrimination. The Combatting Redlining Initiative will be led by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division’s Housing and Civil Enforcement Section in partnership with U.S. Attorney’s offices, and will, among other things, (i) “ensure that fair lending enforcement is informed by local expertise on housing markets and the credit needs of local communities of color”; (ii) “[e]xpand the department’s analyses of potential redlining to both depository and non-depository institutions” (the DOJ noted that non-depository lenders now make the majority of mortgages in the U.S.); (iii) strengthen financial regulator partnerships to ensure fair lending violations are identified and referred to the DOJ; and (iv) increase fair lending coordination with state attorneys general to identify potential violations. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that the initiative will “address[] modern-day redlining by making far more robust use of our fair lending authorities,” and marks the DOJ’s “most aggressive, coordinated effort to address redlining.” Garland noted that several redlining investigations are currently ongoing and more are expected to be opened in the upcoming months.
In his remarks, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra also warned that the Bureau will be “closely watching for digital redlining, disguised through so-called ‘neutral algorithms, that may reinforce the biases that have long existed.’” He added that “the speed with which banks and lenders are turning lending and advertising decisions over to algorithms is concerning,” and cautioned against assuming that algorithms will be bias free.
In conjunction with the announcement of the multi-agency initiative, the DOJ, CFPB, and OCC, took action against a national bank for alleged redlining practices. According to the complaint, the bank violated the Fair Housing Act, ECOA, and the CFPA by deliberately engaging in conduct that discouraged consumers in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Memphis metropolitan area from seeking credit. The bank also allegedly established a limited number of branches in majority-Black and Hispanic communities, and did not provide mortgage-lending services to walk-in customers in these neighborhoods. The complaint further alleged, among other things, that the bank’s fair lending policies and procedures did not adequately ensure equal access to credit to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and that internal governance and oversight committees to oversee fair lending were not established until after the OCC initiated a fair lending examination of the bank.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the bank will be required to pay a $5 million civil money penalty. The bank will also have to invest $3.85 million through a loan subsidy program to increase access to credit, and provide $400,000 to develop community partnerships to increase access to residential mortgage credit. The loan subsidy program will go towards closing cost assistance, down payment assistance, and payment of mortgage insurance premiums. Additionally, the bank must increase branches and outreach efforts in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, devote at least $200,000 in targeted advertising annually to generate applications for mortgages in these neighborhoods, and take remedial efforts to improve its fair lending compliance.
OCC releases October enforcement actions
On October 21, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently or formerly affiliated with such entities. Included is a civil money penalty order against a Seattle-based bank, which requires the bank to pay $2.5 million for, among other things, allegedly failing to adopt and implement a Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering compliance program.
Agencies release statement on LIBOR transition
On October 20, the CFPB, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC, in conjunction with the state bank and state credit union regulators, (collectively, “agencies”) released a joint statement regarding the transition away from LIBOR. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed, FDIC, and OCC issued a joint statement encouraging banks to cease entering into new contracts that use LIBOR as a reference rate as soon as practicable, but by December 31, 2021 at the latest. The agencies' October 20 joint statement provides supervisory considerations for institutions when choosing an alternative reference rate, such as, among other things: (i) the meaning of new LIBOR contracts; (ii) understanding how the chosen reference rate is constructed and the fragilities associated with it; and (iii) expectations for fallback language. In addition, the agencies noted that supervised institutions should “develop and implement a transition plan for communicating with consumers, clients, and counterparties; and ensure systems and operational capabilities will be ready for transition to a replacement reference rate after LIBOR’s discontinuation.”
States, consumer advocates urge agencies to explicitly disavow rent-a-bank schemes
On October 18, consumer advocates and several state attorneys general and financial regulators responded to a request for comments issued by the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and the FDIC on proposed interagency guidance designed to aid banking organizations in managing risks related to third-party relationships, including relationships with fintech-focused entities. (See letters here and here.) As previously covered by InfoBytes, the proposed guidance addressed key components of risk management, such as (i) planning, due diligence and third-party selection; (ii) contract negotiation; (iii) oversight and accountability; (iv) ongoing monitoring; and (v) termination. Consumer advocates and the states, however, expressed concerns that the agencies’ proposed guidance does not “highlight the significant risks associated with high-cost lending involving third-party relationships,” and does not include measures to prevent banks from entering into nonbank lending partnerships (e.g. “rent-a-bank schemes”).
According to the consumer advocates’ letter, the agencies’ guidance “should unequivocally declare that it is inappropriate for a bank to rent out its charter to enable attempted avoidance of state consumer protection laws, in particular interest rate and fee caps, or state oversight through licensing regimes.” The consumer advocates stated that they are aware of six FDIC-supervised banks involved in rent-a-bank schemes with nonbank lenders making allegedly illegal high-cost loans, and urged the FDIC to take immediate, “overdue” action to put an end to them. Among other things, the consumer advocates said the new guidance should explicitly specify: (i) that a bank’s involvement in lending that exceeds state interest rate limits with a nonbank is a “critical activity”; (ii) that lending partnerships involving loans exceeding a fee-inclusive 36 percent annual percentage rate (APR) “pose especially high risks”; and (iii) that in instances where a loan exceeds the Military Lending Act’s 36 percent APR, the federal banking supervisor will directly examine the third-party partner and charge the bank for the cost of the examination.
The states wrote in their letter that “experience teaches us that, in the absence of an explicit disavowal of rent-a-bank schemes, the [p]roposed [g]uidance invites continued abuse of banks’ interest exportation rights, to the considerable detriment of state regulation, consumer protection, and banks’ safety and soundness.” The states strongly encouraged the agencies to “explicitly disavow rent-a-bank schemes.”
OCC issues updated LIBOR self-assessment tool
On October 18, the OCC released an updated self-assessment tool for banks to evaluate their preparedness for the LIBOR cessation at the end of the year. The updated guidance reminds banks that they should cease entering into new contracts using LIBOR as a reference rate as soon as practicable but no later than December 31, 2021. The self-assessment tool may be used by banks to identify and mitigate a bank’s LIBOR transition risks, and management should use the tool to evaluate whether preparations for the transition are sufficient. The OCC notes that “LIBOR exposure and risk assessments and cessation preparedness plans should be complete or near completion with appropriate management oversight and reporting in place,” and “most banks should be working toward resolving replacement rate issues while communicating with affected customers and third parties, as applicable.” The OCC also reminds banks to tailor risk management processes to the size and complexity of a bank’s LIBOR exposures and “consider all applicable risks (e.g., operational, compliance, strategic, and reputation) when scoping and completing LIBOR cessation preparedness assessments.”
Bulletin 2021-46 rescinds Bulletin 2021-7 published in February (covered by InfoBytes here).
OCC releases bank supervision operating plan for FY 2022
On October 15, the OCC’s Committee on Bank Supervision released its bank supervision operating plan for fiscal year 2022. The plan outlines the agency’s supervision priorities and highlights several supervisory focus areas including: (i) strategic and operational planning; (ii) credit risk management, including allowances for loan and lease losses and credit losses; (iii) cybersecurity and operational resiliency; (iv) third-party oversight; (v) Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering compliance; (vi) consumer compliance management systems and fair lending risk assessments; (vii) Community Reinvestment Act performance; (viii) LIBOR phase-out preparations; (ix) payment systems products and services; (x) fintech partnerships involving potential cryptocurrency-related activities and other services; and (xi) climate-change risk management. The plan will be used by OCC staff members to guide the development of supervisory strategies for individual national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches, federal agencies, and technology service providers.
The OCC will provide updates about these priorities in its Semiannual Risk Perspective, as InfoBytes has previously covered.
ARRC recommends firms reduce use of LIBOR before year end
On October 14, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) recommended that all market participants take proactive action now to reduce their use of U.S. dollar LIBOR to promote a smooth end to new LIBOR contracts by year end. ARRC referred to a joint statement issued last November by the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC encouraging banks to cease entering into new contracts that use LIBOR as a reference rate as soon as practicable, but by December 31, 2021 at the latest. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) According to the agencies, entering into contracts after this date will create safety and soundness risks given consumer protection, litigation, and reputation risks at stake. ARRC recommended that firms adopt its selected alternative, the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, which is consistent with steps that several firms have already taken to ensure they are in the position to meet the supervisory guidance. This includes “setting targets for reductions in new LIBOR activity, limiting the range of LIBOR offerings, and implementing internal escalation exceptions processes around new LIBOR contracts for narrow cases in line with supervisory guidance.”
OCC focuses attention on board diversity and inclusion
On October 5, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu stated the agency is exploring several options to improve bank board diversity and inclusion. Speaking during the Women in Housing & Finance Public Policy Luncheon, Hsu stated that the OCC is considering “encouraging banks to make it a practice to nominate or consider a diverse range of candidates or requiring institutions to either diversify their boards or explain why they have not.” Hsu cited examples such as the SEC’s approval of a new Nasdaq “diversify or explain” listing rule, as well as laws passed by the California legislature “requiring companies to have a certain number of female directors and directors from underrepresented communities.” In addition, the OCC is looking at ways other countries are approaching board diversity. “Without diverse leadership, banks and their regulators may develop blind spots or suffer from groupthink,” Hsu said. “These blind spots can lead to the kinds of nasty surprises that threaten safety and soundness—and possibly the financial sector as a whole. There is a growing body of empirical evidence that companies that address these blind spots by having diverse boards of directors have stronger earnings, more effective corporate governance, better reputations, and less litigation risk.” Hsu added that it is time to shift cultural expectations concerning diversity and inclusion and improve diversity transparency at banks, both at the executive and board levels.
5th Circuit: Extended overdraft charges are not interest
On September 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the daily fees imposed on a consumer who failed to timely pay an overdraft were deposit-account service charges, not interest, and thus not subject to usury limits. The plaintiff allegedly overdrew her account and her bank paid the overdraft. The bank began charging a daily fee after the plaintiff did not repay the overdraft within five business days (called an “Extended Overdraft Charge”), which the plaintiff argued constituted interest on an extension of credit and was usurious in violation of the National Bank Act (NBA). In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, the district court reasoned that the bank does not make a loan to a customer when it covers the customer’s overdraft, and therefore the NBA’s limitations on interest charges do not apply. On appeal, the appellate court sided with the district court and deferred to the interpretation of the OCC that the fees at issue were not “interest” under the law. The court found the OCC’s interpretation to be reasonable and otherwise entitled to Auer deference, and on that basis affirmed.